Our Thumb, Their Eye
Score one for our team. I called the Right to Life office about the Supreme Court decision today and heard what could only have been loud and celebratory drinking in the back. What a day. I will say, however, that in my short experience, the cogs of law and culture move really slowly. There is a big question that folks our age are going to have to reckon with in the next 10-15 years which is whether the right will maintain its socially conservative/economically libertarian model once the abortion issue is not such an issue anymore. So excuse me for not joining in with the wine, I am planning on taking down a lot of whiskey in the future and don't want to get ahead of myself.
But despite the ominous future of the right in America, the opinion was great. I just read it and wanted to share with you some of the lil' nuggets of wisdom that I found interesting.
Ginsberg, bitching about disrespect for Casey affirmed, "[abortion rights] do not seek to vindicate some generalzed notion of prvacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship." Awesome, autonomy and equality right there in the same sentence, but it seems that privacy isn't the issue anymore.
She later states, "THis way of thinking reflects the ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution-ideas that have long since been discredited." She is referring to the bond between woman and child. Apparently when my wife gets real excited about baby clothes she is actually going through a rational process of self-determination in radical choice theory. Awesome.
Finally the Yenta speaks, "Today's decision is alarming." Not to us, but to some dried up scion of a dying generation. Say hi to Brennan when you get to the other side, I am sure you two will have a lot to talk about.
On the flip side, the decision is pretty specific in its claims and isn't really all that interesting. Thomas, my main man, joins with Scalia affirming that Roe has no foundation in the Constitution and then takes a swipe at the other side wondering why no one challenged the act on jurisdictional grounds under the commerce clause. I don't know why he said this, maybe he was just pointing out the fact that the foundations of Roe are all but vanished and if the ladies of the left want to play ball in Roberts' SCOTUS, they are going to have to leave the garbage that they learned from Prof. Judy Rodham-Trotsky and rethink their strategy. What do you guys think?
But despite the ominous future of the right in America, the opinion was great. I just read it and wanted to share with you some of the lil' nuggets of wisdom that I found interesting.
Ginsberg, bitching about disrespect for Casey affirmed, "[abortion rights] do not seek to vindicate some generalzed notion of prvacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship." Awesome, autonomy and equality right there in the same sentence, but it seems that privacy isn't the issue anymore.
She later states, "THis way of thinking reflects the ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution-ideas that have long since been discredited." She is referring to the bond between woman and child. Apparently when my wife gets real excited about baby clothes she is actually going through a rational process of self-determination in radical choice theory. Awesome.
Finally the Yenta speaks, "Today's decision is alarming." Not to us, but to some dried up scion of a dying generation. Say hi to Brennan when you get to the other side, I am sure you two will have a lot to talk about.
On the flip side, the decision is pretty specific in its claims and isn't really all that interesting. Thomas, my main man, joins with Scalia affirming that Roe has no foundation in the Constitution and then takes a swipe at the other side wondering why no one challenged the act on jurisdictional grounds under the commerce clause. I don't know why he said this, maybe he was just pointing out the fact that the foundations of Roe are all but vanished and if the ladies of the left want to play ball in Roberts' SCOTUS, they are going to have to leave the garbage that they learned from Prof. Judy Rodham-Trotsky and rethink their strategy. What do you guys think?
posted by Duebster95 at 9:41 AM
8 Comments:
I need to read the opinion, but it sounds like the left is being forced to show their hand and that these past attempts at hiding behind imaginary constitutional "prenumbras" are no longer going to fly. They don't seem to be shy about acknowledging that abortion is not so much per se constitutional (as it also seems that the "right" to abort is now magically fluttering between several Amendments; is it privacy or equality?), as it is philosophical and sociological elitism and control in the "spirit of the Constitutional Convention," if you will.
I need to go read the opinion
I've only read the Syllabus, but here are my thoughts:
1. written by Kennedy, who has opposed partial-birth abortion before, but is fine with abortion in general.
2. allows the law to stand, but only because there are other alternative means to abort these babies.
3.facial challenge to the statute, so they will surely challenge it again when they have a good case to challenge its application (I suppose it will be an arrested doctor who claims that in one specific situation he could not have performed any abortion except a partial birth abortion - don't know how that will work)
4. all those things considered, it is very significant that any anti-abortion law not including an exception for the life of the mother was upheld. I must admit, I thought the more likely way it would play out would be more and more restrictions upheld, as long as they had exceptions for the life and health of the mother. This first step (second step if you count that one parental notification case out of Minnesota(?) a while back the name of which I can't think of right now) is very important.
Agreed on all counts and thank you for numbering them, that made it very easy to follow. This ruling is a small step, but much bigger than anticipated.
I think the case before was Ayotte.
Here is some classic politics coming out of the decision (from the Opinion Journal) -
Harry Reid is pretty upset that the Supreme Court upheld the law (http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/scotus.abortion/index.html?section=cnn_latest)
BUT HE VOTED FOR THE LAW (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00402)
I can understand people who have different views than me (they are wrong, but I can at least theoretically understand it). What I can't comprehend is how people can just be flat out dishonest liars.
Unbelievable. Nice investigative work there, Ransom. I really like the quality effort on the part of everyone the past few days. I'm feeling positive about the Catholic Blog Awards.
I stole the facts straight from James Taranto, so my investigative work was minimal. That last bit was all mine, though, so I guess I can take credit for an original comment, right?
Not that it matters, but the other case I was thinking of was Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990). The Supreme Court upheld a parental notification law that did not have an exception for the health of the mother. The health issue was not raised before the court, but some prolifers argue that this was an implicit approval of a notification law without a health exception. It is a pretty weak argument, considering the decisions that have come since.
If I remember correctly, Ayotte was more of a punt than anything else.
You remember correctly
Post a Comment
<< Home